User talk:CGrue

Welcome!

Hello, CGrue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFF - New contributor questions...

Hello CGrue — welcome to Wikipedia.

To reply to your questions on WP:RFF (Wikipedia:Requests for feedback) in order:

Yes, you posted in the right place to get feedback on the article you wrote. Having said that, one doesn't always get much of a response. I'll have a look at it myself if I have time later...
The discussion would either take place on WP:RFF (where you asked the question) or, more likely, on your User talk page (i.e. this page).
Responding is (as you suspected) simply a matter of hitting edit next to the paragraph you want to edit and typing away. Note that protocol is to indent responses by adding one or more colons to the start of your response.
Finally, to sign your posts you simply type four tildes (~~~~) after your message; they will be converted automatically to your name (linking to your User page) and the time of your post.

Hope that's helpful. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave a message on my Talk page. Do check the help pages too — they're fairly comprehensive. Good luck! ^talkGiler S 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Bester...

Hello again — I've had a (rather cursory, I'm afraid) look at your edits of Alfred Bester and they look great. I have a couple of comments, though:

Titles of novels should be italicised; titles of short stories (as you've correctly shown, I think) should be in "quotation marks". See WP:MOS-T for further information. I suspect that titles of collections should also be italicised too, but I'm not sure.
There are a lot of red links, which may lead in time to a warning like this. You may (or may not) want to consider keeping the ones for the novels and, possibly, the collections and losing the links to the short stories, which may be less likely to be worthy of an entry in themselves. By keeping the list (but unlinking the entries), anyone searching for the title of one of the short stories would be led to the page about the author anyway. Or you could write short entries for all the short stories! I'm not sure how much that would add, though. Entirely up to you.
Finally, I noticed from the article's history that you had about twenty edits in succession yesterday. It might be easier if you use the preview button throughout the editing process and only save once, at the end of your session. That way, the history doesn't get cluttered, it prevents edit conflicts and all your edits are clearly visible with one click. More a matter of etiquette than a rule (see WP:SR) but it's certainly a help to others.

Don't take my word for any of this, by the way, as I may be wrong! But I hope that these suggestions are useful ones — and thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place...

Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question about Deletion suggestion

Hi, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and especially their model article/examples section. It does not appear they have a preferred format for credits, so it seems you can do what you deem to be the best way. The way you suggested seems perfectly fine to me, certainly it's the more established method of listing credits in the liner notes I've seen. And thanks for understanding the reason why I tagged the articles. hateless 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

book jacket text

hey CGrue--regarding the use of book jacket text: i think its sort of a gray area, there is probably no copyright on the text, but i think, generally, it may be more useful to the encyclopedia user to have a clear, more detailed synopsis, rather than a blurb meant to advertise the book. also, according to WP:NPS, large amounts of material should not be copied directly from a source. however, its a good place to start, and i may have been wrong in deleting it. if youve read the book, perhaps you should start a plot section in the article and just provide a brief rundown of the main points in a more encyclopedic tone than the jacket provided (or if youre very worried about your memory, just change the info found in the jacket into your own words, and lose the advertising-ish feel). i hope this helped, get back to me if you have any more questions. happy editing. Benji64 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]